unmanage_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds real substance: it discloses the actual effect (monitoring masked, not deleted), that the action is reversible via remanage_node, the dry_run preview path, and the mandatory end time. It stops short of mentioning permissions or the masking scope limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=high] flag, then effect and inverse, then args — good structure. Minor redundancy: the dry_run preview is stated twice (once in prose, once in Args) and the remanage inverse is stated twice, but overall it is tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a high-risk write with no output schema, it covers purpose, reversibility, dry_run, required parameters and timestamp format, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits auth/permission requirements and any note on output or confirmation behavior, a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: node_id (Numeric Orion NodeID), start_iso/end_iso (ISO-8601 UTC, end required), dry_run (preview), and target (config target name, omit for default). Nothing essential is left undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Unmanage a node') and immediately clarifies the effect ('masks its monitoring'). It explicitly names its inverse (remanage_node), letting an agent place it against siblings like remove_node and schedule_maintenance without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides actionable guidance ('Pass dry_run=True to preview', 'Reversible → remanage', 'no open-ended unmanage') and names the inverse tool. However it never contrasts with scheduling siblings like schedule_maintenance or remove_node, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over those.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.